Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1523 (RAJ)

Madan Lal v. Board of Revenue, Ajmer

2012-07-10

BELA M.TRIVEDI, NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN I

body2012
JUDGMENT 1. 1. At the request of learned counsel for the parties, arguments were heard and the special appeal is being disposed of finally. 2. The appellant has preferred this intra-Court appeal against the order of learned Single judge dated 12.8.2002, whereby S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1967 of 1996, preferred by the appellant against the order of Board of Revenue for Rajasthan, Ajmer dated 29.1.1996, has been dismissed. 3. The respondent No. 4 Lal Chand filed a Revenue suit for ejectment under Section 183 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 is respect of the land is dispute which was decreed by the Court of S.D.O., Chhabra. The defendant Madan Lal preferred first and second appeal, which were also dismissed by the Revenue Appellate Authority and Board of Revenue, vide its Judgment and order dated 7.7.1992 and 29.1.1996 respectively. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred writ petition before the Single Bench, which came to be dismissed vide order dated 12.8.2002, which is impugned in this special appeal. 4. Submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the land bearing Khasra No. 456, measuring 2 bighas and 17 biswas, was allotted to the appellant in the year 1975. The respondent No. 4 filed a suit for declaration which was decreed in the year 1979, wherein the appellant was not impleaded as a party. The respondent No. 4 thereafter filed the present suit for ejectment on the basis of decree for declaration passed in his favour in the year 1979, which was passed in absence of appellant, therefore, all the judgments passed by the S.D.O. R.A.A., Board of Revenue, Ajmer and the learned Single judge, are illegal and liable to be set-aside. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent has supported the order passed by the Single Bench and also the other judgments passed by S.D.O. R.A.A. and the Board of Revenue and submitted that the total Rakba i.e. measurement of land bearing Khasra No. 45b is 6 bighas and 9 biswas, out of which, a land measuring 2 bighas and 17 biswas was allotted to the appellant. The suit of respondent No. 4 was in respect of land bearing Khasra No. 456 measuring 3 bighas and 9 biswas. The suit of respondent No. 4 was in respect of land bearing Khasra No. 456 measuring 3 bighas and 9 biswas. The land of appellant was different from the land of respondent No. 4 He has further submitted that the appellant came to know about the decree of 1979 passed in favour of respondent No. 4 in the year 1980 itself, when he received a summon of the present suit for ejectment filed by the respondent No. 4 but he did not challenge the decree passed in favour of the respondent in the year 1979. He has also submitted that the question of possession in respect of the land in dispute, is purely a question of fact and all the Revenue Courts have recorded a concurrent finding and suit for ejectment of respondent No.4 has been decreed. The said finding of fact could not and has not been interfered by single bench. He, therefore, submitted that the special appeal be dismissed. 6. We have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and examined the impugned order passed by the learned Single judge and also the other judgments and orders passed by the learned S.D.O., R.A.A. and Board of Revenue for Rajasthan Ajmer. 7. There is no dispute between the parties that total measurement of the land bearing Khasra No. 456 is 6 highas and 9 biswas, out of this Rakba, land measuring 2 bighas and 7 biswas was allotted to the appellant and the land measuring 3 bighas and 9 biswas was allotted to the respondent No. 4 The respondent No. 4 filed a suit for declaration in respect of his land which was decreed in the year 1979 and thereafter, he filed a suit for possession under Section 183 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 which was decreed and thereafter first appeal and second appeal were preferred by the appellant, which were dismissed by the R.A.A. and the Board of Revenue. The Single Bench has affirmed the order of Revenue Board. The appellant came to know about the decree of 1979 passed in favour of respondent No. 4 when he received a copy of present suit for ejectment filed by the respondent No. 4 but he did not prefer any appeal against decree of 1979 passed in favour of respondent No. 4. It appears that the land of appellant and respondent both are different. It appears that the land of appellant and respondent both are different. The Courts below have examined the merits of the case in detail and by a speaking order, decreed the suit of respondent No. 4. 8. We have examined the reasons assigned by the learned Single Judge for dismissal of the writ petition and we find that learned Single Judge was absolutely right in not interfering with the findings of fact recorded by the Courts below. We find no illegality or infirmity in the order passed by the learned Single Judge so as to interfere with the same in this intra-Court appeal. 9. to view of the above discussion, we find no merit in this intra-Court appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.Special appeal dismissed. *******